Let's just face the facts, you don't go to a movie like Transformers to see deep characterization and a well structured plot. You go to munch on your popcorn and watch some adrenaline pumping action scenes with some of the best special effects ever put on film. If you put yourself in the right set of mind, you'll have a lot of fun watching this movie, because that's exactly what it is- lots of fun as only Michael Bay can deliver. In short, it's a perfect example of exactly what it wants to be.

I don't know anyone who expected character development or a deep, intriguing storyline from the movie. But those of us who dislike the movie feel the way we do because it wasn't fun. It was too generic, and long, and boring to provide the "adrenaline pumping action." And I don't know about anyone else, but why in the hell would I spend $10 on a movie so I can turn my brain off? The last thing I want to do while watching a movie is to do that. I can do it for free at home while zoned out in front of the TV or in bed at night. For me, a movie is at its best when it ENGAGES the mind.

If you like the TRANSFORMERS movies, fine. But please don't tell me the reason you like them is because you occasionally yearn to experience what it might be like to undergo a frontal lobotomy.

Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:14 am

Vexer

Re: July 15, 2009: "Out of Touch"

James Berardinelli wrote:

Porcis wrote:

Let's just face the facts, you don't go to a movie like Transformers to see deep characterization and a well structured plot. You go to munch on your popcorn and watch some adrenaline pumping action scenes with some of the best special effects ever put on film. If you put yourself in the right set of mind, you'll have a lot of fun watching this movie, because that's exactly what it is- lots of fun as only Michael Bay can deliver. In short, it's a perfect example of exactly what it wants to be.

I don't know anyone who expected character development or a deep, intriguing storyline from the movie. But those of us who dislike the movie feel the way we do because it wasn't fun. It was too generic, and long, and boring to provide the "adrenaline pumping action." And I don't know about anyone else, but why in the hell would I spend $10 on a movie so I can turn my brain off? The last thing I want to do while watching a movie is to do that. I can do it for free at home while zoned out in front of the TV or in bed at night. For me, a movie is at its best when it ENGAGES the mind.

If you like the TRANSFORMERS movies, fine. But please don't tell me the reason you like them is because you occasionally yearn to experience what it might be like to undergo a frontal lobotomy.

Well okay, turning your brain off isn't something I do when I see a film like this, I just relax and enjoy it, and there's not really much for me to watch on TV and little else for me to spend my money on, so it might as well be on a film I know i'll enjoy right? Unlike you, not everyone sees movies to engage their mind, I sure as hell don't! at least not intentionally. I'll read a book if I want to do that, but I see movies to escape from reality and see lots of stuff get blown up, nothing wrong with that! And there's a very simple reason why you weren't a fan of this movie, not necessarily the only reason but it's probably the main one-cause you were never a fan of any of the cartoon series. People love movies like this because they're still partially a kid at heart and are reliving fond childhood memories by seeing this film, that's how it is for me, so since you never saw any of the TV series this film was based on, it's not the least bit surprising that you didn't like it. This is one of those films that critics most likely will not understand the appeal of unless they were fans of the TV series.

Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:22 am

corpen11

Director

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 8:28 pmPosts: 1471Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: July 15, 2009: "Out of Touch"

Vexer wrote:

James Berardinelli wrote:

Porcis wrote:

Let's just face the facts, you don't go to a movie like Transformers to see deep characterization and a well structured plot. You go to munch on your popcorn and watch some adrenaline pumping action scenes with some of the best special effects ever put on film. If you put yourself in the right set of mind, you'll have a lot of fun watching this movie, because that's exactly what it is- lots of fun as only Michael Bay can deliver. In short, it's a perfect example of exactly what it wants to be.

I don't know anyone who expected character development or a deep, intriguing storyline from the movie. But those of us who dislike the movie feel the way we do because it wasn't fun. It was too generic, and long, and boring to provide the "adrenaline pumping action." And I don't know about anyone else, but why in the hell would I spend $10 on a movie so I can turn my brain off? The last thing I want to do while watching a movie is to do that. I can do it for free at home while zoned out in front of the TV or in bed at night. For me, a movie is at its best when it ENGAGES the mind.

If you like the TRANSFORMERS movies, fine. But please don't tell me the reason you like them is because you occasionally yearn to experience what it might be like to undergo a frontal lobotomy.

Well okay, turning your brain off isn't something I do when I see a film like this, I just relax and enjoy it, and there's not really much for me to watch on TV and little else for me to spend my money on, so it might as well be on a film I know i'll enjoy right? Unlike you, not everyone sees movies to engage their mind, I sure as hell don't! at least not intentionally. I'll read a book if I want to do that, but I see movies to escape from reality and see lots of stuff get blown up, nothing wrong with that! And there's a very simple reason why you weren't a fan of this movie, not necessarily the only reason but it's probably the main one-cause you were never a fan of any of the cartoon series. People love movies like this because they're still partially a kid at heart and are reliving fond childhood memories by seeing this film, that's how it is for me, so since you never saw any of the TV series this film was based on, it's not the least bit surprising that you didn't like it. This is one of those films that critics most likely will not understand the appeal of unless they were fans of the TV series.[/quoteIt's understandable to watch a film with the inner child in us. That doesn't excuse trying to show the audience the same thing we can watch from a sub-par t.v. show. When I go to the movies, I want to be entertained but don't treat me like a mindless puppet.

Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:02 pm

Vexer

Re: July 15, 2009: "Out of Touch"

I don't know whre you got the mindless pupett feeling form, but for films like this, I just feel entertained and occasionally enthralled, I don't have to turn my brain or mind off to enjoy these types of films at all.

Thu Jul 23, 2009 4:22 pm

corpen11

Director

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 8:28 pmPosts: 1471Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: July 15, 2009: "Out of Touch"

O.K. Vexer, at times, I can enjoy a simple movie. both of us can agree on that. The film has to try to put me in the feeling of a roller coaster ride. Nothing wrong with a little fun at the movies, but try to be good during that process.

Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:00 pm

Vexer

Re: July 15, 2009: "Out of Touch"

corpen11 wrote:

O.K. Vexer, at times, I can enjoy a simple movie. both of us can agree on that. The film has to try to put me in the feeling of a roller coaster ride. Nothing wrong with a little fun at the movies, but try to be good during that process.

Yeah I get what you mean, some people love that feeling and others hate it, I love it, though I hate rollercoasters.

Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:05 pm

John L.

Re: July 15, 2009: "Out of Touch"

I didn't read all the responses before posting, so apologies in advance if I'm parroting someone else.

Critics hated this movie because it was loud, dumb, frentically edited, action-packed, and made for sensibilites of pre-teen boys. The people who liked the movie liked it because it was loud, dumb, frentically edited, action-packed, and made for sensibilites of pre-teen boys. There are more of the latter (by a large margin) than the former. Do I have to draw a roadmap?

That being said, everyone who complains about the tastes of "audiences" is off-base. The movie made $350M. At an average ticket price of $8, that means about 43M million tickets were sold. Even assuming those aren't repeat sutomers, that's about 1/7 of the American population. I hate it when people talk about the decline of American tastes, just because a fraction of the population likes something stupid. Guess what, this movie was marketed (very well) to the bottom 1/7 in terms of tast. It hit its mark is all.

Fri Jul 24, 2009 3:36 pm

Ivy Mike

Re: July 15, 2009: "Out of Touch"

I see a movie in a theater, first-run, maybe once every ten years nowadays. TF:ROTF was the first I'd seen in a theater in five years.

I went with my son, on his sixth birthday. Just me and him, no Mommy, no baby sister. Dad-and-Son. We'd planned it for a while, as he'd pure loved TF1 and was excited to see this one, not just for the movie, but because it'd be the second he's seen on a big screen in his life; and because it'd be with Dad. I was excited to see it for the same reasons.

So, for the runtime of the film, we sat, munched popcorn, laughed, giggled, cheered. I felt myself sort of "regress" to that six-year-old sense of wonder and awe, feeding off my son't delighted exuberance. I found myself completely ignoring the "bad" parts of the film, and loving the rest. My son never lost the bright, wide smile on his face, or the wonderment in his eyes.

After the film, he kept up a nonstop monologue on everything that happened all the way home and then for another hour to his mother. He finished the day passed out on his bed amongst a bunch of "Transformers" toys, having re-enacted the movie several times over with them. His attitude was contagious; everyone in the house down to the cats and dog was in a good mood.

When I went to his room to put him in bed and clean off the action figures, he woke briefly, wrapped his arms around my neck and, hugging deeply, said, "Daddy, I love you". He slept like an angel.

Say what you will about "bloated", "loud", "overdone", etc. Complain about poor scripts, bad acting, or what have you. THIS 41-year-old father will carry the memories of that fine, great day at the movies with him for all time, and if I knew where to send it, I'd send Mr. Bay a thank-you note.

I'll be happily purchasing the DVD of this film when it comes out. On that Saturday afternoon, I spent some of the best money in my life.

It's not just about the movie itself, folks...it's also the context in which it was seen. Critics, by the nature of their jobs, go to see movies as part of WORK. They have to spend hours in theaters, observing closely, making notes of all the good and bads, composing the review to be written in the wee hours. That's got to effect the final product, for good or ill.

I much prefer my way. I don't think I could even do a critic's job, as I like to "lose" myself in the movies as much as possible. Given the story above, I'm sure you'll agree that it's not a bad thing.

I had a spectacular time. My son did, too. Might this be the beginning of a lifetime of movie-loving for him, much as the old drive-in movies my parents took me to way back in the 70's were for me? It certainly seems so. Don't ever forget, these experiences, properly done, last a lifetime.

Thu Jul 30, 2009 8:16 pm

Kyle

Re: July 15, 2009: "Out of Touch"

Nobody said this wasn't a movie for six year old boys

And how's that lifetime of movie loving going? Oh, you say you see a movie once every ten years?

Sorry I'm being such a cock

Thu Jul 30, 2009 8:39 pm

Ivy Mike

Re: July 15, 2009: "Out of Touch"

Kyle wrote:

Nobody said this wasn't a movie for six year old boys

And how's that lifetime of movie loving going? Oh, you say you see a movie once every ten years?

Sorry I'm being such a cock

It's okay. I see most movies on DVD. Reserving the "theater experience" for special occaisions works better for me. Last one I saw in a theater before this was "Return Of The King".

And, there's nothing whatsoever wrong with movies for six-year-olds. My son's burgeoning collection includes every "Godzilla" movie made, plus a bunch of other giant monster movies. He picked that habit up from me.

Thu Jul 30, 2009 8:47 pm

Kyle

Re: July 15, 2009: "Out of Touch"

That's fine, it's just that a 6 year old boy will sit through any pile of hot zoo garbage if it's got enough robot monsters or explosions. And I mean, come on, this movie was too dumb. Like, I don't even mind dumb movies if they've got enough robot monsters or explosions, but this movie was just too dumb. They gratuitously blow up a library just for the sake of blowing up a library. It's a giant F U to intellectualism.

And, lookit, it's nice that you and your son had a good day together. Seriously, I totally get that and I'm glad you're the kind of dad who enjoys doing that for his son. But your argument that your own personal experience overrode any shortcomings the film may have had doesn't do a whole lot for the rest of us. I didn't see the movie with my son. I saw it with a bunch of people who were just as bored/mildy offended as I was. I mean, what can you say? Like I did say, nobody'll tell you that six year old boys won't love this movie. When I shell out twenty or so bucks, though, I want something a little more than that. That's all

Thu Jul 30, 2009 9:04 pm

Ivy Mike

Re: July 15, 2009: "Out of Touch"

Kyle wrote:

That's fine, it's just that a 6 year old boy will sit through any pile of hot zoo garbage if it's got enough robot monsters or explosions. And I mean, come on, this movie was too dumb. Like, I don't even mind dumb movies if they've got enough robot monsters or explosions, but this movie was just too dumb. They gratuitously blow up a library just for the sake of blowing up a library. It's a giant F U to intellectualism.

And, lookit, it's nice that you and your son had a good day together. Seriously, I totally get that and I'm glad you're the kind of dad who enjoys doing that for his son. But your argument that your own personal experience overrode any shortcomings the film may have had doesn't do a whole lot for the rest of us. I didn't see the movie with my son. I saw it with a bunch of people who were just as bored/mildy offended as I was. I mean, what can you say? Like I did say, nobody'll tell you that six year old boys won't love this movie. When I shell out twenty or so bucks, though, I want something a little more than that. That's all

Well, I don't claim that my experience overrode ANY shortcomings in the film, it's just that the experience I personally had made it quite natural to ignore them and just have fun, as, I'm sure, the filmmakers intended.

As for the library thing, I didn't get that at all. It really seems, to me, like you're simply reading too much into that. it was just one more action scene. They blew up a pyramid, too...was that a big "F U" to ancient Egypt?

Ya gotta lighten up a bit, man. But, YMMV.

Thu Jul 30, 2009 9:20 pm

Vexer

Re: July 15, 2009: "Out of Touch"

Kyle wrote:

That's fine, it's just that a 6 year old boy will sit through any pile of hot zoo garbage if it's got enough robot monsters or explosions. And I mean, come on, this movie was too dumb. Like, I don't even mind dumb movies if they've got enough robot monsters or explosions, but this movie was just too dumb. They gratuitously blow up a library just for the sake of blowing up a library. It's a giant F U to intellectualism.

And, lookit, it's nice that you and your son had a good day together. Seriously, I totally get that and I'm glad you're the kind of dad who enjoys doing that for his son. But your argument that your own personal experience overrode any shortcomings the film may have had doesn't do a whole lot for the rest of us. I didn't see the movie with my son. I saw it with a bunch of people who were just as bored/mildy offended as I was. I mean, what can you say? Like I did say, nobody'll tell you that six year old boys won't love this movie. When I shell out twenty or so bucks, though, I want something a little more than that. That's all

You really pay 20 bucks to see a movie? Damn! That's WAAAYYYYY TOO much, even if it's from a big theater chain. I live near Marcus Cinema and Tinseltown, both from major chains and it's less then 10 bucks to see a movie at both of those places. If you paid THAt much to see a movie you ended up hating then I can't blame you for being pissed. I think 20 bucks to see a film is a huge rip-off, especially if you end up hating the film, I was dissapointed enough after sitting through 30 Days Of Night, but if i'd paid 20 bucks to see it... I'd probably smash the projector for that film!

Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:16 pm

Kyle

Re: July 15, 2009: "Out of Touch"

No, I don't think there are all that many places around the country where you'd be charged 20 bucks to see a flick. But when you're in NYC and you've also gotta foot the bill for your lady friend it can hit upwards of thirty dollars once popcorn or soda gets involved. And when you're paying around 30 bucks to see a movie, it better not be Transformers 2

Thu Jul 30, 2009 11:33 pm

Vexer

Re: July 15, 2009: "Out of Touch"

Kyle wrote:

No, I don't think there are all that many places around the country where you'd be charged 20 bucks to see a flick. But when you're in NYC and you've also gotta foot the bill for your lady friend it can hit upwards of thirty dollars once popcorn or soda gets involved. And when you're paying around 30 bucks to see a movie, it better not be Transformers 2

Ah I see, fortunately my lady friend usually insists on paying equal whenever we both see a film, and I never bother getting any snacks as they're overpriced and I don't really need them.

Fri Jul 31, 2009 12:17 am

PeachyPete

Re: July 15, 2009: "Out of Touch"

Ivy Mike wrote:

I had a spectacular time. My son did, too. Might this be the beginning of a lifetime of movie-loving for him, much as the old drive-in movies my parents took me to way back in the 70's were for me? It certainly seems so. Don't ever forget, these experiences, properly done, last a lifetime.

Great story. I'm honestly glad you guys had such a great day. That being said, if this is the beginning of a lifelong movie love for your son, how do you think he'll feel about TF2 in 20-30 years when he's telling his kids about how he got into loving movies? My bet is, he'll re-watch it at 30 and say, "Wow, this sucks, it's definitely for kids." Maybe he always has a soft spot for the movie because of the memories associated with it (hell, I have a soft spot for tons of movies like that), but I don't think that means critics are out of touch, or that those memories somehow vindicate an otherwise shitty movie. Their job is to evaluate the movie, it's pointless for them to try to take into account in what context the movie is seen. As for TF2, the consensus is it's shit. If people like (or dislike) the film on its own merits, that's fine. It's tough for me to agree that it's about more than just the movie though, because for critics, it's not. They stake their jobs on their opinion, and to make it about more than just the movie causes that opinion to lose some credibility. There is inherently an amount of subjectivity to seeing any movie, but keeping what objectivity there can be should be priority #1 for critics.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum